2. This film describes in significant detail, the developing problems with water around the world. The first problem addressed is the pollution of the world’s water supply. A diminishing amount of water on the planet is potable, and even the water that is considered potable more often than not is full of contaminants ranging from pesticides to prescription drugs and rocket fuel. These materials build up on the body and can have severe impacts even in small quantities. Atrazene is a fertilizer that is a prevalent water contaminant in rural America. It has been linked to decreased sperm count and other reproductive problems. The next problem discussed is the privatization of the world’s water supplies. A majority of the water in the developed world is owned by only three multinational corporations. Additionally, these corporations are gaining ownership of the developing and underdeveloped world’s water supplies. Organizations like the WTO are forcing small nations to privatize their water and it is having a great negative impact in the life of people in these places. When the multinationals move in they charge an exorbitant amount for the water they provide which in many cases is no cleaner or safer than the water the people had before but it actually worse. Many people cannot afford the water and are forced to find water elsewhere which leads to millions of deaths globally due to waterborne illnesses. The final issue covered was bottled water. This creates its own plethora of problems. For one thing, bottled water is no better than non-bottled water but it costs much more. This in itself is not a problem, but the plastic waste generated is. Additionally, the industry is powerful enough that they are negatively affecting people in the United States. For example, in Michigan, Nestle received rights to pump water for bottling and did so despite resistance from the citizens. They even bottled during a drought which hurt the local environment and negatively affected the citizens. Bottled water also detracts from growth of the water industry elsewhere. To give an idea of the problem, consider the fact that in 2007, the UN estimated that it would have taken $30 billion to provide clean drinking water to the entire planet. In that year alone over three times that was spent on bottled water.
3. The primary concerns of this film draw out environmental, political and economic problems. Environmentally, the film points to the polluted state of the water supplies of the world. The major problem is that although in many nations the water is kept at a low pollutant level, we are quickly discovering that even low levels of certain pollutants can have extreme ill effects. There are major political concerns with water as well. It has been predicted by multiple people that the shortening water supply may eventually lead to water wars, where wars are fought over water sources needed to sustain the populations of the warring nations. However, even present day there are political problems for sustainability. It is clear that the government gives more say to the water companies than the people relying on the water for survival. It is of deep concern that the world water council is led by the CEOs of the world’s largest private water companies. As long as this is the case, it cannot be expected that world water matters are going to be handled in a socially responsible manner. The economic problems addressed in the film are largely based on the severe poverty of many of the people in places that lack clean drinking water. When companies come in and charge people for water, they cannot afford it and either die of dehydration or they risk death by waterborne illness. In Bolivia for example, one in ten children dies by age five of a waterborne illness. The economies of these places make privatized water unreasonable and unsustainable. Additionally, the economy drives these companies to pump water unsustainably as seen n the Nestle case, and in others.
4. The part of the film that was most compelling was the way the movie connected the matrix of problems that contributed to the overall global water crisis. The primary aspect in this regard was the way in which the largest water companies have control of the international bodies that make decisions about water including the WTO and world water council. It is not surprising then that there is an international push for the privatization of water in poor and rich nations alike. These bodies argue that privatized water does a better job than public water despite all the evidence that this is often not the case. Then when a nation or city does privatize, who gets the deal? It is not some small start-up or the like. It is one of the big companies that control the international groups.
5. The only part of the film that was not particularly convincing was the minor argument that too much water goes into agriculture. It is true that in many cases water sources like rivers and aquifers are being depleted, but quite frankly I would prefer that this water was going towards food than say, the production of plastic. Admittedly, better conservation is possible, but the film does not elaborate on this point and simply criticizes farming for consuming so much water without really pointing out the problems and especially without suggesting any kind of solution.
6. One thing that would be interesting to look into is how much water every nation actually has access to within its own borders and then compare that with how much they consume. If it so happens that a significant amount of water is outsourced or a majority is on the borders between nations, then I find the water war theory much more compelling. On the other hand if the entire world is running low, but everyone depends on themselves for their water, water ears become less likely because odds are the people with the most water have the largest area like the U.S, Russia, and China, and the odds of these nations going to war with each other for water is probably miniscule, at least within the lives of my generation.
7. This film is good for a wide range of audiences. It contains enough factual information to satisfy the academic crowd while containing enough first hand speakers and examples to satisfy the casual audience. It is a good film for educational purposes because of this mixture as well. It definitely leads viewers to be skeptical of water privatization and it may also be capable of bringing about a reduction in bottled water use, though this is covered in more detail in other videos. Additionally, it definitely leaves the viewer thinking critically about whether water is a resource that ought to have nay corporate hands tied into it.
8. As seems to be the case with many of the films seen in this class, there is little offered in the way of solutions. The problems are described in detail and leave open solutions, but the film was not meant to solve the problem, only to give it media. However, some possible solutions that the film seems to indicate might be possible could include greater governmental and international regulation of water companies as well as the shying away from privatized water. If, perhaps, the UN declared that water is a resource which should be free for all, the companies might have to back off. Another possible point of intervention for the pollution problem could be a reduction in the use of chemicals outside that are shown to cause ill effects to humans and the environment. On that note, increased testing of the chemicals found in water could prove useful in reducing their use.
9. To enhance the educational value of this film, the makers could have included possible solutions. Besides this however, it would be nice to see if there are any places in the third world that have found some kind of balance in their water use that might serve as a model for other regions. Another interesting point could have been some kind of indication of where potable is water is located in comparison to major population centers. If this were introduced, it might better serve to indicate the magnitude of the water problem in the third world. Viewers might think that this is effecting a small portion of the world when in fact it is a huge number (some statistics are in the film, but a graphical depiction would likely serve better).
Flow
An annotation by Evan Beauvilliers1. Flow: Directed by Irena Salina, Released 2008
2. This film describes in significant detail, the developing problems with water around the world. The first problem addressed is the pollution of the world’s water supply. A diminishing amount of water on the planet is potable, and even the water that is considered potable more often than not is full of contaminants ranging from pesticides to prescription drugs and rocket fuel. These materials build up on the body and can have severe impacts even in small quantities. Atrazene is a fertilizer that is a prevalent water contaminant in rural America. It has been linked to decreased sperm count and other reproductive problems. The next problem discussed is the privatization of the world’s water supplies. A majority of the water in the developed world is owned by only three multinational corporations. Additionally, these corporations are gaining ownership of the developing and underdeveloped world’s water supplies. Organizations like the WTO are forcing small nations to privatize their water and it is having a great negative impact in the life of people in these places. When the multinationals move in they charge an exorbitant amount for the water they provide which in many cases is no cleaner or safer than the water the people had before but it actually worse. Many people cannot afford the water and are forced to find water elsewhere which leads to millions of deaths globally due to waterborne illnesses. The final issue covered was bottled water. This creates its own plethora of problems. For one thing, bottled water is no better than non-bottled water but it costs much more. This in itself is not a problem, but the plastic waste generated is. Additionally, the industry is powerful enough that they are negatively affecting people in the United States. For example, in Michigan, Nestle received rights to pump water for bottling and did so despite resistance from the citizens. They even bottled during a drought which hurt the local environment and negatively affected the citizens. Bottled water also detracts from growth of the water industry elsewhere. To give an idea of the problem, consider the fact that in 2007, the UN estimated that it would have taken $30 billion to provide clean drinking water to the entire planet. In that year alone over three times that was spent on bottled water.
3. The primary concerns of this film draw out environmental, political and economic problems. Environmentally, the film points to the polluted state of the water supplies of the world. The major problem is that although in many nations the water is kept at a low pollutant level, we are quickly discovering that even low levels of certain pollutants can have extreme ill effects. There are major political concerns with water as well. It has been predicted by multiple people that the shortening water supply may eventually lead to water wars, where wars are fought over water sources needed to sustain the populations of the warring nations. However, even present day there are political problems for sustainability. It is clear that the government gives more say to the water companies than the people relying on the water for survival. It is of deep concern that the world water council is led by the CEOs of the world’s largest private water companies. As long as this is the case, it cannot be expected that world water matters are going to be handled in a socially responsible manner. The economic problems addressed in the film are largely based on the severe poverty of many of the people in places that lack clean drinking water. When companies come in and charge people for water, they cannot afford it and either die of dehydration or they risk death by waterborne illness. In Bolivia for example, one in ten children dies by age five of a waterborne illness. The economies of these places make privatized water unreasonable and unsustainable. Additionally, the economy drives these companies to pump water unsustainably as seen n the Nestle case, and in others.
4. The part of the film that was most compelling was the way the movie connected the matrix of problems that contributed to the overall global water crisis. The primary aspect in this regard was the way in which the largest water companies have control of the international bodies that make decisions about water including the WTO and world water council. It is not surprising then that there is an international push for the privatization of water in poor and rich nations alike. These bodies argue that privatized water does a better job than public water despite all the evidence that this is often not the case. Then when a nation or city does privatize, who gets the deal? It is not some small start-up or the like. It is one of the big companies that control the international groups.
5. The only part of the film that was not particularly convincing was the minor argument that too much water goes into agriculture. It is true that in many cases water sources like rivers and aquifers are being depleted, but quite frankly I would prefer that this water was going towards food than say, the production of plastic. Admittedly, better conservation is possible, but the film does not elaborate on this point and simply criticizes farming for consuming so much water without really pointing out the problems and especially without suggesting any kind of solution.
6. One thing that would be interesting to look into is how much water every nation actually has access to within its own borders and then compare that with how much they consume. If it so happens that a significant amount of water is outsourced or a majority is on the borders between nations, then I find the water war theory much more compelling. On the other hand if the entire world is running low, but everyone depends on themselves for their water, water ears become less likely because odds are the people with the most water have the largest area like the U.S, Russia, and China, and the odds of these nations going to war with each other for water is probably miniscule, at least within the lives of my generation.
7. This film is good for a wide range of audiences. It contains enough factual information to satisfy the academic crowd while containing enough first hand speakers and examples to satisfy the casual audience. It is a good film for educational purposes because of this mixture as well. It definitely leads viewers to be skeptical of water privatization and it may also be capable of bringing about a reduction in bottled water use, though this is covered in more detail in other videos. Additionally, it definitely leaves the viewer thinking critically about whether water is a resource that ought to have nay corporate hands tied into it.
8. As seems to be the case with many of the films seen in this class, there is little offered in the way of solutions. The problems are described in detail and leave open solutions, but the film was not meant to solve the problem, only to give it media. However, some possible solutions that the film seems to indicate might be possible could include greater governmental and international regulation of water companies as well as the shying away from privatized water. If, perhaps, the UN declared that water is a resource which should be free for all, the companies might have to back off. Another possible point of intervention for the pollution problem could be a reduction in the use of chemicals outside that are shown to cause ill effects to humans and the environment. On that note, increased testing of the chemicals found in water could prove useful in reducing their use.
9. To enhance the educational value of this film, the makers could have included possible solutions. Besides this however, it would be nice to see if there are any places in the third world that have found some kind of balance in their water use that might serve as a model for other regions. Another interesting point could have been some kind of indication of where potable is water is located in comparison to major population centers. If this were introduced, it might better serve to indicate the magnitude of the water problem in the third world. Viewers might think that this is effecting a small portion of the world when in fact it is a huge number (some statistics are in the film, but a graphical depiction would likely serve better).